New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:23 am
Matrix Games Forums
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Page 1 of 3
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:40 pm
I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:38 am
It may be invisible to radar but unfortunately it's not invisible to our eyes [:D]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:18 am
It reminds me more of the Merrimack.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:15 am
As the second (confederate) incarnation.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:57 pm
Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:33 pm
ORIGINAL: Denniss
As the second (confederate) incarnation.
There was only one USS Merrimack. The second version was the CSS Virginia.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:33 pm
ORIGINAL: robinsa
I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
It's the traditionalist in you. Only matters how well she fights.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:46 pm
Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:48 pm
If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:39 pm
warspite1ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]
Or better still, re-making the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (late thirties re-build stylee).... [;)]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:22 pm
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.
The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:05 pm
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.
The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."
It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:24 pm
The CiC looks a lot like my vision of the WitP 2.0 interface:
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:12 pm
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]
By post-688 I meant an everyday, affordable (relatively) SSN. Sure they're modern and take many features from Seawolf. But Seawolf was not affordable in the post-Cold War environment in the numbers we need to fulfill tasking. And Seawolf was vastly over-designed for most SSN missions. Like using a Jaguar to haul plywood.
However, in a real sense the 688 was not a "post-637 design." I'm sure you know what the 637 was designed to do, and what the 688 was designed to do. Different. And that's all I'm saying about that here.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:08 am
ORIGINAL: Dili
Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
Destroyers are much bigger today.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:40 am
It brings one back to the days of ram bows at the turn of the last century.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:10 pm
They did not miss the mark by much....
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:06 pm
I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
Does look like a giant submarine.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:02 pm
ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: Dili
Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
Destroyers are much bigger today.
I know, just playing in the WW2 mode, hence the Wash. Treaty reference.